Monday, April 23, 2012

The Altar Call

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Paul, Galatians 2:16, KJV

In America over the last two centuries, no event has become more associated with the evangelical-fundamentalist movement than the altar call. In evangelistic campaigns, revival crusades, and many church services, the altar call is synonymous with winning souls to Jesus Christ, or calling backslidden believers to repent and return to the Lord.

Typically, at the end of an evangelistic or church service, the invitation is extended for those in the audience to physically rise up out of their seat, step out into the aisle, and walk forward to a “metaphorical altar” located at the front of a church or stadium. As one altar call was stated:

Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. Christ went to the Cross because he loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps. Come right now.[1]

At a metaphorical altar located at the front of the meeting place, people supposedly become saved. Other reasons for extending the altar call include that persons might rededicate their lives to Jesus after having backslidden into sin, seek certain spiritual gifts or blessings, or perhaps, dedicate their lives to vocational Christian ministry. Because of the publicity that altar calls receive via televised evangelistic crusades, and their use in many local churches, no public rite of passage to salvation, or rededication, is viewed as important as the altar call.

But the greater question surrounding this rite of passage is whether, or not, it accords with the nature of faith as the New Testament defines it. We need to examine “the altar call” in light of the Bible’s description of faith, and what it means to be justified by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Does the altar call help someone to get saved? Or possibly, could this rite of Christian passage actually hinder the salvation of many?

However, before dealing with such questions and others, let it be stated that the matter before us is serious. With the altar call, whether to ask for it or not, issues regarding the purity and simplicity of the Gospel and the eternal destiny of human souls are involved. Issues raised by the altar call should not be conveniently ignored or cavalierly dismissed. There are devoted believers who date their conversion or spiritual turnaround from the time when they responded to an altar call at an evangelistic or revivalistic meeting. To such believers, the altar call has assumed a very special place in their lives. Their conversion and spiritual experience needs to be respected, but recognized for what it is; that it is their experience, and theirs alone. Therefore, the matter of the altar call is not to be considered lightly, but with godly solemnity. With this stated, we proceed to deal with the questions and issues which surround the public invitation system that has arisen within the evangelical-fundamentalist movement. We proceed to deal with the first question, which are twelve in number, regarding the altar’s role in the Bible.

1. The Altar Call: is it a biblical concept?
The English word for “altar” derives from the Hebrew word mizbeah, which means “place of sacrifice.” The root of the Hebrew word for altar is zabah, which means to “to slaughter for sacrifice.” The altar was the place in the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple, where ancient Israelites brought their animals to be sacrificed to God, either as burnt, sin, guilt, or thank-peace offerings (Leviticus 6-7).

In our English Bible, the word altar occurs approximately 364 times in the Old Testament, and about 25 times in the New Testament. In the majority of these NT usages, the altar refers to the place of sacrifice located on the Temple mount in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. In one instance, “altar” metaphorically refers to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross (Hebrews 13:10), while the book of Revelation describes a heavenly altar which “was before the throne” and “before God,” the place out of which the horrendous judgments of the Apocalypse originated (Revelation 8:3; 9:13; 16:7).

Salient points that can be deduced from the word’s occurrence in the Bible are these: First, the word “altar” is distinctly an Old Covenant term which has reference to the place where God required faithful Israelites to bring their sacrificial animals to be slaughtered. As such, the altar represents law, not grace. Second, the word finds scant mention in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, to whom Jesus vouchsafed truths for the governance of church life, used the word “altar” twice in reference to Israel’s sacrificial system which allowed the priests to eat of the sacrificial meat. According to Paul, this priestly right provided the precedent for churches to pay their pastors (1 Corinthians 9:13; 10:18). And third, other than referring to the completed sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the world’s sins, the altar per se finds no mention in the New Testament’s presentation of what it means to believe. While the New Testament calls upon New Covenant believers to make sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 13:15-17; Romans 12:1-2), these sacrifices are not for salvation. Neither are they to be made upon any altar. Furthermore, the sacrifices are voluntary (grace), not mandatory (law).

It may surprise some to find out that in the New Testament there is no mention of or reference to “altar call” evangelism. In that Christ fulfilled the law, and was the final sacrifice demanded by God, no other sacrifice upon an altar, literal or metaphorical, is needed. From the perspective of Calvary, both the sacrifices and the altar of the Old Testament are obsolete. Signaling an end to the sacrificial system at the moment of Jesus’ death, “[T]he veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom...” (Matthew 27:51). Furthermore, as predicted by Jesus, God judged the whole Jewish sacrificial system, altar and all, in A.D. 70 when invading Roman armies razed the Temple (Matthew 24:2). For the time being, and until the Jews regain control of the Temple Mount, that destruction of the temple ended the ancient Jewish sacrificial system.

Furthermore, the New Covenant faith instituted by Christ and His apostles ended the need for any altar. With the Lamb’s completed sacrifice, God is well pleased and satisfied (John 4:34; 19:30). No other sacrifice on any altar, literal or metaphorical, is needed other than that which Christ made. Therefore, because of the diminished role of the altar under the New Covenant, and in that there is no altar call mandated in the Bible, it must be asked, where did the rite come from? Who stated the tradition?

2. The Altar Call: what was its origin?
The American evangelist Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) was the first evangelist-revivalist to employ the altar call, or public invitation. In the words of a Billy Graham biographer, Finney employed “new measures” in his evangelistic and revivalistic preaching. In one of the first known accounts of the now-familiar invitation system, he challenged people to stand or come to the front of the assembly to accept Christ. As William Martin wrote, “Finney believed conversion could be instantaneous and did not hesitate to use social pressure... to bring it about.”[2] Beginning with Finney, the altar call caught on, and subsequent American evangelists, from Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899), to Billy Sunday (1862-1935), to R.A. Torrey (1856-1928), to Bob Jones (1883-1968), to John R. Rice (1895-1980), and to Billy Graham (1918-Present), did not hesitate to use it. In that Finney originated the invitational altar call system, and in that his methodology derived from his theology, it would be well for us to understand the theological framework into which the evangelist fit the altar call. Finney was both a theological Pelagian (he denied original sin and affirmed people's ability to become righteous by their own efforts) and a methodological pragmatist (he would use any means to get people saved).

In his Pelagianism, the evangelist believed a person’s salvation could be auto-engendered. He believed salvation commenced in the domain of man’s free will, not according to God’s sovereign work upon the human soul. In his Systematic Theology, Finney wrote:

We deny that the human constitution is morally depraved, because it is impossible that sin should be a quality of the substance of soul or body. It is, and must be, a quality of choice or intention, and not of substance.[3]

Again the evangelist wrote:

[T]he sinner has all the faculties and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience to God. All he needs is to be induced to use these powers and attributes as he ought.[4] [emphasis added]

This Finney believed in spite of Scripture’s declaration, “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Romans 3:11, KJV). Yet in spite of this scriptural declaration, one of the inducements the evangelist employed was the altar call. In his pragmatism, Finney believed that all human beings, if properly "induced", would respond to the Gospel message, would positively respond to God to be saved.

According to Finney’s theology, human beings, when confronted with the Gospel message, and if properly induced, will all positively respond to God to be saved. Persons will choose God, and not themselves. In contrast to Jesus’ teaching on the new birth (John 3:3, 7, “You must be born again [i.e., from above]”), Finney believed a person could be born from below, “born of the flesh” (John 3:6). Finney advocated this in spite of the biblical doctrine of humanity’s radical depravity (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:14-23; Romans 3:9-18). As opposed to Paul who wrote that people are “dead” in their “trespasses and sins,” Finney believed that somehow people were “alive” in their trespasses and sin, and as such, salvation could be self-engendered (See John 3:1-8; Ephesians 2:1.).

In summarizing the divergent ways of revival, William Martin observed, “Jonathan Edwards felt revivals had to be ‘prayed down’; Charles Finney believed they could be ‘worked up’ and developed a clear-cut system for doing so.”[5] Thus, Finney’s theology gave rise to his methodology.

In his pragmatism, Finney would employ any method that generated the results he and the audience desired to see. About the evangelistic method in general, Finney stated that there is nothing supernatural about it. In his book Revivals of Religion, he wrote:

A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means – as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.[6]

Finney’s pragmatic system included the altar call, and to that end, he believed that people’s wills could be manipulated to get them to the altar.

3. The Altar Call: does it contradict justification by faith?
Salvation is by faith, and not by works. Genesis records that Abraham “believed in the Lord, and He [the Lord] reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). In explaining the great doctrine of justification by faith, the Bible quotes or alludes Abraham’s prototypical faith on three subsequent occasions (Romans 4:3, 20-22; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23).

Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. Salvation comes to the human heart by faith plus nothing; or as some might state it, via naked faith. Paul wrote that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His [God's] sight” (Romans 3:20). Again, the Apostle states “that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28). As proof of this point, New Testament texts could be further multiplied.

Paul stated that, to both Jews and Greeks, he preached “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). Salvation involves the following ingredients: godly sorrow for the sins we have committed against God (i.e., repentance), faith in Jesus Christ’s substitutionary atonement for our sins, and belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. In the shortest evangelistic sermon ever preached, Paul told the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved...” (Acts 16:31). In no instance were people saved in the New Testament by heeding an altar call and walking down an aisle. Jesus and the apostles called upon people to repent and believe. Salvation is by faith plus nothing (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is based upon what the Savior has done, not upon anything we might do.

The Reformers understood that salvation was by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide). The clarion call of Jesus in the Gospel narratives was for people to believe in Him (John 14:1). The epistles exhort persons to trust the Gospel; that the Lord Jesus Christ “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). If persons agree with this Gospel, they will be saved (Romans 10:9-10).

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and himself an evangelist, wrote about acts such as “standing or going forward in a meeting.” Without equivocation he stated, “Great confusion has been wrought by the intrusion of such public acts into the condition for salvation; thereby making salvation seem to be by faith in Christ, plus a supposedly meritorious act.”[7] Chafer then concludes, “To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is the very opposite of doing anything: it is resting in the work and saving grace of Another.”[8]

On this point the altar call–no matter how well-intentioned by those who employ it–seems to be a human contrivance. It suggests that one can be saved by a walk (i.e., a work). Thus a work is either added to faith (i.e., synergism), or a work is substituted for faith (i.e., humanism). If in the mind and heart of the doer there is the slightest thought that walking an aisle is a cause or condition for salvation, then the act falls under the “anathema” (i.e., the curse or ban) of being “another gospel” (Galatians 1:9). Far from being an addition to faith, the altar call could prove, in the hearts of many persons, to be a replacement for a faith that is abiding and ongoing; and if that be the case, the consequences of such a substitution will be a spiritual disaster for eternity.

If by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, God will save me Just as I Am, then it also stands to reason that, by His grace, He can save me just where I am. No physical movement to a metaphorical altar at the front a church, or stadium, is necessary. All that is needed is a response in faith to the regenerating wind of the sovereign Spirit blowing upon one’s soul (John 3:8). The altar call is an unbiblical exercise unbecoming the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

4. The Altar Call: does it attempt to make faith visible?
Hebrews says, “Now faith is... the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Of believers, the apostle Paul stated, “[W]e walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7; Compare 2 Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:7, 27.). The altar call, it seems, is an attempt by man to make invisible faith visible, and in so doing, becomes a supplement to faith. On this point, the altar call seems to “dress up” faith, a walking that might be thought to be the clothing for believing. But Chafer notes that placing one’s faith in Christ as Savior, “can be performed only in the secret of the heart itself.... This is a dealing with Christ alone, and... reason demands that it should be guarded from every distracting and confusing condition.”[9] Again Chafer comments:

The divine plan in saving men provides that the Gospel of the saving grace of Christ is to be clearly presented to them. As they hear, some will believe, and when they believe they will in that instant be saved by the mighty power of God (John 3:36). There is little demand for methods beyond this God-given program.[10]

In the salvation transaction, the invisible God desires to save believers by invisible faith. After salvation, the invisible faith of the believer gives rise to visible works. Good works become the clothing of faith, proof that one’s Christian faith is genuine. By God’s grace the believer is to “put off the old man” and “put on the new man” (See Colossians 3:3-14.). A changed life serves continuing notice that one’s salvation is genuine. A faith that possesses root will bear fruit. A one time response to an altar call does not qualify as the fruit of salvation for as James wrote, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17, KJV)

5. The Altar Call: has it become an evangelical sacrament?
The primary definition of a sacrament is “a visible sign of an inward grace.” Roman Catholicism administers seven sacraments which operate ex opera operatio (Latin, “from the work done”). In other words, by their observance, the sacraments confer salvation through the church to a person. These sacraments are: 1. baptism; 2. confirmation; 3. mass, or the Lord’s Supper; 4. penance, or confession; 5. extreme unction, or last rites; 6. marriage; and 7. orders, the ordination of priests and the consecration of nuns. The church holds that with the exception of marriage and orders, the church member must observe five of the saving mechanisms. Out of this sacerdotal business, the question arises within the context of the evangelical-fundamentalist movement, has the altar call become such a salvation mechanism? If it has, then the altar call is, as the previous discussion indicates, a corrupting influence upon the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide).

Within the psyche of man their ever exists a pragmatic tendency to reduce religion to rites. Like apostate Israel of old, Christians, it seems, seek after “signs,” outward signals that God has done an inward work (i.e., regeneration; Compare John 4:48; 1 Corinthians 1:22.). In this light, the unseen walk of faith becomes difficult because all of us are voyeurs at heart – we want to observe things happening now.

And in the early church, the rite of circumcision was just such a pragmatic, but painful, requirement added by Judaizers for salvation. The Judaizers said, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). But after intense debate in the early church, Peter nullified any such requirement when he announced, “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11; Read Acts 15:1-11.).

Like the circumcision the Judaizers required, is the altar call an attempt to validate salvation by something tangible or visible? It may be so.

6. The Altar Call: does it usurp the Holy Spirit’s authority?
Of the Spirit’s ministry in the work of evangelism, of getting people into the kingdom of God, Jesus told Nicodemus:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again.” The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit (John 3:6-8).

In His statement to Nicodemus, Jesus likened the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (i.e., “born of the Spirit”) to the sovereign blowing of the wind. What the Lord communicated appears to be this: People can no more determine their entrance into the kingdom of God than they can control the wind and the weather. Such is the authority of the Holy Spirit in conversion.

Charles Finney, on the other hand, denied the authoritative working of the sovereign Spirit in evangelism. He wrote:

From the dogma of a sinful nature or constitution... flowed the doctrine of inability to repent, and the necessity of a physical regeneration. These too have been a sad stumbling-block.... They infer the salvation of all men, from the fact of God’s benevolence and physical omnipotence![11]

Finney believed that salvation came to the human soul not by the wind of the Spirit, but by the will of man. But the altar call is not a mechanism which facilitates and determines when the saving wind of the Holy Spirit might blow upon the human heart.

7. The Altar Call: is it a vow?
Often the altar call is offered with phrases like, “Give your life to Jesus. Make your commitment to Jesus now.” Inherent within the altar call is the idea that a person is making a promise or vow to Jesus.

About such phrasing, our Lord said:

Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.” But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, “Yes, yes” or “No, no”; and anything beyond these is of evil (Matthew 5:33-37).

What many Christians fail to realize is that we are not saved by any promises we might make to God, but rather by His promise to us in Christ. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Galatians 3:22; Compare 1 Kings 8:56.). No human vow to the Lord possesses the power to regenerate the human soul. We are not saved by any commitment we might make to Jesus, but by His commitment to us (Deuteronomy 31:6, 8; Hebrews 13:5). We are regenerated by God’s promise of the Spirit to us through faith in Christ (Acts 2:33; Ephesians 1:13-14). Failure to understand this great salvation truth may explain why some people are driven to return to the altar again and again. Like New Years’ resolutions, their re-commitments fail. On the other hand, there is great assurance for believers who will simply focus and rest upon God’s promises to them.

8. The Altar Call: can personalities manipulate it?
About the state of authority in the evangelical sub-culture, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones insightfully wrote:

We have become fascinated by the idea of bigness, and we are quite convinced that if we can only ‘stage’ (yes, that is the word!) something [sic] really big before the world, we will shake it, and produce a mighty religious awakening. That seems to be the modern conception of authority.[12]

Against the backdrop of Lloyd-Jones’ observation, the question must be asked: For appearance’s sake, can the altar call be staged?

Chuck Templeton (1915-2001), who was once best friends with Billy Graham and helped the evangelist found Youth for Christ before he, Templeton, quit the Christian faith, informed Graham’s biographers that “he became increasingly aware of how easy it was to manipulate people from the pulpit.” About those who walked forward in evangelistic meetings, Templeton “complained to Billy that their motivation was not all spiritual, that a lot of their success could be attributed simply to ‘animal magnetism’.”[13] Templeton understood the altar call is not necessarily a spiritual event, but that its results can be attributed to the flesh.

In the public invitation system, there exists a temptation to make the invisible work of God visible, to achieve the tangible results that many wish to see; and, to validate their ministries, some evangelists and preachers will employ pragmatic means to make things happen. Finney did. Templeton complained to Graham that they did. And those who choreographed and televised Graham’s crusades worked at it. About the sight of the hundreds of people coming forward at the end of a Billy Graham crusade meeting, one of the evangelist’s biographers describes, “...they came, they came. Serious of mien but devoid of tears or other overt signs of emotion, more than a thousand souls” came forward. William Martin then goes on to explain:

The response pleased the audience in the television truck: ‘Pan around and pull, [Camera] Three. Let them walk through. We want movement. Stand by, One. . . . Give me the shot with the aisles. A little further right. That’s nice. Would you look at that! They’re still coming’.[14]

While working at a conference center one summer as a teenager, I was temporarily assigned to the tabernacle. One conference week was run by an international ministry for the purpose of training evangelists, especially in the matter of conducting the public invitation and altar call. The invitation/altar call was to be offered in two stages. The Raise-the-Hand Stage: While every head was bowed and every eye was closed, the evangelists were to invite members of the audience to raise their hands if they wanted to accept Jesus. The Come-to-the-Altar Stage: After the hands had been raised, then those who had raised them were called to get out of their seat and walk forward to the front of the auditorium or church. In retrospect, the two stage process sort of reminded me of the “bait and switch” tactic used in advertising and sales. People are baited to just raise their hand in their seats. Then the invitation is switched as the people were then asked to get up out of their seats and move to the front of the auditorium.

To lessen human inhibition, to make it easier for members of the audience to participate, and to get audience members into the first stage, the evangelists needed people to raise their hands. In this regard, I heard the seminar leader explain to the evangelists that during the first stage they were never to say, while the audience’s heads were bowed and eyes closed, that they saw hands being raised when in fact no hands were being raised. In so many words, they were told that it would be unethical to “prime the evangelistic pump” in such a manner.

Nevertheless, at one particular “evangelistic” meeting held during the week of that training conference, I sat in the very rear of the tabernacle. In the first stage, the evangelist told the audience to bow their heads and close their eyes as he invited people to accept Jesus into their heart. Rebellious and curious teenager that I was at that time in my life, I neither bowed my head or closed my eyes. Rather, I watched. I watched while the evangelist repeatedly said, “I see that hand.... Yes, thank you, I see that hand.... Thank you, I see your hand.... Over on my left, I see that hand,” and so on, and so on. As I watched and surveyed the audience from my rear vantage point, guess what? While the evangelist said he saw hands being raised, I saw no hands being raised! To this teenager, the whole process appeared to be gimmickry, not a movement of God’s Spirit.

When Billy Graham crusades came to town, hundreds, if not thousands, of counselors were trained. At the beckoning call of the invitation, and to the singing of Just as I Am by the crusade choir and audience, these trained counselors would rise up en masse and proceed down the aisles to the front of the stadium. In doing so, the counselors gave the impression that they were responding to the invitation thereby lessening the inhibition of others to do so. After all, if all these people are going forward, why shouldn’t I? In essence, the moving of the multitude of counselors to the altar functioned to prime the evangelistic pump.

Yet response cards revealed that “few inquirers were confirmed pagans. Most already had some connection to a church or had come to the crusade as a guest of a churchmember [sic].”[15] In the crusade that opened up Texas Stadium in August of 1973, some Dallas Seminary students who had served as counselors at the crusade told me that those whom they had counseled were clueless as to why they had even walked to the front of the stage located at about the west 30 yard-line.

On another occasion while a student at Dallas Theological Seminary in the early 1970s, my wife and I attended the morning service of one large Southern Baptist church. The service was televised, and at the end of it, the pastor gave an altar call to those who wanted to accept Jesus. Members of the audience immediately got up out of their seats and moved to the metaphorical “altar” at the front of the church. The television broadcast was concluded as the cameras panned the sight of 10-15 people walking down the aisle to accept Jesus. After the cameras had quit rolling and the singing had stopped (the program was now officially off the air), the pastor stepped down from his pulpit to interview those who now stood at the front of the church, having given the impression to the TV audience that they had come forward to accept Jesus. But the subsequent interviews revealed that some persons had come forward to take out church membership while others were moving their membership from another church to that church, and so on. As I recollect, not one person, as the invitation had stated, testified to having moved forward to accept Christ. Yet the impression provided to the television audience, and first-time visitors such as my wife and I, was that people were coming forward to accept Jesus. As those who produced telecasts of the Graham crusades knew, an altar call can make for good television, but only if people respond. If there is no physical response, the whole scenario misfires.

What I am saying is this: The whole business of inviting people to the altar is intended to achieve tangible and visible results, and in accord with the strategies like that previously described, results can be choreographed and manipulated for appearance’s sake. Chuck Templeton knew he could employ tactics to lessen the audience’s inhibitions and achieve results. Maybe that explains why, in part, Templeton felt the invitational system could be accounted for reason of “animal magnetism.” The altar call can easily degenerate into a movement of man, not God. As Dr. Chafer wrote, “A leader with a commanding public personality may secure the public action of many when the issue is made one of religious merit through some public act.”[16] In congregations that expect results, altar calls are something that evangelists and pastors had better get good at, or their credibility will become suspect by voyeuristic Christians who like the Jews of Jesus’ day, want to see God moving in their midst (See John 4:48; “Jesus therefore said to him, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe’.”).

9. The Altar Call: what are the results?
Where there is no fruit there is no root. Jesus hit on this point when He preached:

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity(Matthew 7:20-23, KJV).

What Jesus said about the phony prophets can also be said of the false professors of Christianity. As James states, faith without works is dead (James 2:20, 26).

As Charles Finney was the first to utilize the altar call, how did this rite of passage into the Christian life play out in the lives of those who walked the aisle? In his book Perfectionism, B.B. Warfield quotes Joseph Ives Foot, a contemporary of Finney, who wrote in 1838:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that his (Finney’s) real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by himself, that ‘the great body of them are a disgrace to religion’....[17]

In light of “free-will altar calls,” we ask, what are the tangible results, or fruit, in the aftermath of people’s lives? In his book A Call for Spiritual Reformation, D. A. Carson draws attention to a pattern. He asks: “To what extent do those who profess faith at world-class evangelistic meetings actually persevere, over a period of five years from their initial profession of faith?” Carson then cites the following statistic: “When careful studies have been undertaken, the most commonly agreed range is 2 percent to 4 percent; that is, between 2 percent and 4 percent of those who make a profession of faith at such meetings are actually persevering in the faith five years later, as measured by such external criteria as attendance at church, regular Bible reading, or the like.”[18] There seems to be a high recidivism rate among those who after responding to the invitation to walk an aisle, return to their sinful lifestyles. More often than not, they are like criminals who upon release after incarceration, return to a life of crime. Just as I Am lapses into just as I was. If in the afterlife of having walked an aisle nothing changes in a person’s life, if there is no sensitivity to sin and cultivation of righteous living, then it can only be concluded that regeneration has not taken place–that a person was not truly born again.

One can only hope that, in their response to the altar call, those who have not persevered in the faith do not possess the false assumption that they are saved because “once-upon-a-time” they walked an aisle (2 Corinthians 13:5). As Whitney R. Cross notes in his historical account of the Finney-style revival ministry of the mid-1800s, the whole process can easily become “a relentless mechanism forcing the person to say he was converted and to imagine the corresponding inner transformation.”[19] Like in the crucial moment of a baseball game, when a batter smacks a line drive into left field appearing to drive in the decisive and winning run, at the last split second, to the crowd’s dismay, the ball curves foul. How many conversions are foul ball conversions? If Carson’s statistics are valid, far too many, it seems.

The Bible teaches, “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Corinthians 7:10, KJV). If a person’s repentance is based upon carnal excitement, or “animal magnetism” as Templeton defined it, then such repentance is of the world and works death, not life. In a repentance which works death, no life change is evidenced in the unconverted “convert.” If people are saved through the altar call, as many testify to have been, then I think it may be safe to say that they were saved in spite of the altar call, not because of it.

The evidence of salvation (i.e., justification) is that of a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17). As Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote, “If the spectacular element in public soul-winning is eliminated there is less opportunity to count supposed results, and the test of conversion will be removed from the sphere of profession and made to rest on the reality of a changed life afterwards.”[20] The Bible knows nothing about true believers who live in perpetual carnality. We may stumble and fall in our Christian walk. We may even be injured and require spiritual hospitalization for a time. The cameo (i.e., the little picture) can sometimes appear quite unbecoming of a believer; but overall, the panorama (i.e., the big picture) of a true believer’s life will be a beautiful thing, provided that life is rooted in Christ. This brings us to a tenth question which surrounds the altar call.

10. The Altar Call: does not the salvation of a few justify the walk of many?
The end justifies the means, so the pragmatist reasons. Most of those who employ the altar call will admit that ninety-six to ninety-eight percent of persons walking an aisle experience no authentic work of God in their souls, that the spiritual results in people’s lives are mixed, perhaps even being heavily weighted in the negative. Nevertheless, practitioners of the altar call will argue that the possible spiritual awakening of a few justifies an apparent spiritual hardening of many. As summarized by one early advocate of the altar call when the method was first instituted, “If only some souls are saved by the use of new measures, we ought thankfully to own their power, and give them our countenance.”[21] So the question arises, should evangelists and pastors employ a method that, though it might bring a spiritual blessing to a few, may also negatively impact the spiritual life of many?

Such faulty reasoning was summarized as follows: “From the little that I saw, I would say that if good is done by these irregular means, it is done at frightful expense. It is like slaying hundreds to save one.”[22]

11. The Altar Call: doesn’t it help people to find assurance of salvation?
On an ongoing basis, in being assured of salvation, it is important that believers keep focus upon Jesus and what He has done, not upon anything they have done or might do. The author of Hebrews states: “[L]et us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:1b-2). In gaining the assurance of salvation, it is important that believers keep their focus upon God’s Word, not upon a walk that happened “once-upon-a-time.”

To those who truly believe, God’s Word offers great assurance. Consider the following verses: “For I am persuaded, that [nothing]... shall... separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39, KJV; Read verse 8:29-39.). “Wherefore He [Jesus] is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, KJV). “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 24-25). Assurance of salvation comes to us by God’s Word, and not by our walk to a metaphorical altar.

12. The Altar Call: do any biblical texts support the evangelical rite?
Advocates of the altar call prevail upon the following proof text to establish the rite of the altar call. It gives people an opportunity to publicly confess Jesus Christ as Savior. Jesus said, “Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33). At first glance, Jesus’ words might seem to endorse the altar call as such a confession. But the context of Jesus’ words does not support such understanding.

The issue surrounds not what the Christian is to do – believers are to confess Christ – but rather, before whom they are called upon to do it. They are to confess Jesus “before men.” Just who are these men? Are they believers, or unbelievers? Do they represent civil and/or religious authorities? Are the men hostile to, or embracing of, Christianity? Is the confession to take place inside the church, or outside the church? Questions surround the meaning of “men” in this context. So how should Jesus’ words (“Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven”) be understood?

Jesus told the disciples that they would be called upon to confess Him before unfriendly courts, governors, and kings. Earlier in the chapter Jesus warned His disciples, “But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to the courts, and scourge you in their synagogues; and you shall even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:17-18). As one commentator observed, “Public acknowledgement of Jesus” in this context was likely to be “in a court defense....”[23]

Other verses in the context bear it out. Again Jesus warned of persecution to come: “And brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next....” (Matthew 10:21-23a). The environment in which Jesus told the disciples they would be called upon to confess His name before men was going to be unfriendly. The context of this verse has nothing to do with confessing Christ by walking an aisle in the “friendly confines” of a church. Rather, it has to do with confessing Christ before hostile civil, magisterial, and judicial authorities.

Conclusion
In their giving altar calls, many pastors provide the appearance of deeply caring for souls, the implication being that any pastor who does not offer altar calls cares neither for the salvation or spiritual welfare of people. This issue needs to be addressed.

On this point, we enter into the realm of motive, and as Paul stated, only God is qualified to judge any pastor’s heart and motive. He wrote:

For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God’s (1 Corinthians 4:4-5).

Though sometimes during and at the end of a service, I frequently invite people to trust in Jesus Christ where they are, I do not ask them to do anything outwardly to signify their inner faith. That will come later through baptism and good works, both of which follow faith (See Acts 2:38; 8:12; etc.). I invite them to faith, not to move forward. I do not invite them to walk forward for what, in my view, is a very important reason: I do not want faith to become confused with something else. I do not want “do” (i.e., Come forward.) to be confused with “done” (i.e., Christ’s sacrifice is complete and sufficient to save us from our sins.). The Gospel demands that persons possess a godly sorrow and conviction for sin, place their faith in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for their sins, and believe that He rose from the dead. As a pastor, I do not want any method to conflict with or confuse this message. I want nothing to come between the sinner and the Savior. Salvation is through faith and by grace (i.e., the unmerited favor of God), and for that reason, I do not offer altar calls. Faith is personal. I refrain from doing altar calls not because I am indifferent to the state of people’s souls, but rather, because I am concerned that there is no confusion about how a person is saved – that people cannot be saved by anything they might do, but rather, by faith in what Jesus has already done. God’s salvation comes to the human heart by faith plus nothing!

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Heaven

Most people, whether Christians or not, have some ideas about a future life that could be called heaven. Many of those ideas are misguided or plain wrong and, sadly, even reasonably well taught Christians may have wrong ideas of what heaven is all about.

This world is simply too corrupt, sinful and contaminated to ever become heaven. People who are trying to save the planet and change governments to create God’s Kingdom on this earth are wasting their time. Yes, one day Heaven will be back on this earth, but in order for that to happen, God will completely destroy the present heavens (sky) and earth (Revelation 21:1, 2Peter 3:10-13). In fact, the process by which He will do that can be described as “uncreating” – He will reverse the whole process of creation and the present creation will cease to exist. He will then create a “New heavens and a new earth” and then the New Jerusalem will descend out of heaven and be located back on the New Earth (Revelation 21:3, 10).

So what will heaven be like? Modern Gospel songs do not sing about heaven because their writers are looking for heaven in this creation. But if I have to believe the old Gospel songs, then heaven will be about streets of gold, a mansion over the hilltop, crowns and an eternity of comfort. That is actually how most Christians see heaven and of course those ideas are actually based on the Scriptures.

But there is one problem. All these ideas about heaven miss the most important part of heaven – The Lord Jesus Christ!

We have missed the point regarding the purpose of the church. We believe church is about worship, preaching, fellowship, evangelization, meetings and so on. Most churches have forgotten that all those things we do every week is secondary and that it should really all be about Jesus Christ. Paul put it this way: “And He is the head of the body, the church… that in all things He may have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:18). Thus church has become a whole bunch of activities and Jesus finds Himself outside His own church (Revelation 3:20).

In the same way we have created a Heaven in which Jesus is simply a curiosity. Just like when you go to Paris, you have to see the Eiffel Tower and when we go to heaven, we will get to see Jesus. But we are really more interested in the big mansion and wonder if we will have air conditioning, a big screen TV in the living room and a barbeque in the back yard. We wonder if our crown will be bigger than our neighbor’s and if my mansion will be the grandest on the block.

Because of our materialistic worldview we have turned heaven into a place of things, houses and streets. Because of our sinful pride we have re-created heaven into a place where I will be the big deal, with the big crown and mansion and where I will eventually be vindicated.

Heaven is not about you or me, or even about Paul or Peter – it is about Jesus. He is the center, the focus and the purpose. We will spend eternity simply being in His presence and worshipping and serving Him. And here’s the problem. For the majority of Christians that is not very exciting. If God told us that heaven would be a squatter camp but Jesus would be there, would you still want to go? If Jesus is what your life is about you would agree with the hymn writer:

The same Christians who say they long for heaven complain when the service goes five minutes too long or the pews are too hard. Friend, if you find an extra five minutes in the Lord’s presence a challenge or if you cannot sit through a one hour service without checking your cell phone, I have news for you. Heaven will be a long hell for you!

Do you find that shocking? Well, it is supposed to be because it’s the truth. If you cannot wait to get out of the prayer meeting, or don’t even bother to go to the prayer meeting, or wonder why the hymn could not have a few less verses, I seriously doubt that you will enjoy heaven. If you find reading the Bible or attending the Bible study boring, you will be very uncomfortable in heaven.

If Jesus is not the real center of your life – I mean that everything you do and think, revolves around Him, then heaven really has nothing to offer you. Heaven is not about streets, mansions and crowns. It is about simply being in the presence of Jesus for ever and ever. If you find that idea scary, I am concerned that you will be disappointed with heaven. Actually, you won’t even see heaven because heaven is only for those who love Him with all their hearts and whose lives revolve totally around Him.

Be honest now: Are you looking forward to heaven because you are tired of this life or because of the secondary attractions of heaven, or is it simply that you want more of Him? If your answer is anything except you want to see Him face to face and be in his presence forever, then you need to check your birth certificate.

If, on the other hand, you enjoy this life so much that you hope Jesus will not come too soon, you also have a serious problem. You are probably not fit for heaven either.

Paul said: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain… having a desire to depart and be with Christ… is far better.” (Philippians 1:21, 23). His highest goal was simply to “be with Christ.” That is heaven!

Monday, April 09, 2012

Old or Just Sensitive?

The New (Age) Music in the Churches Today

An Editorial by Pastor John Shipman, New Zealand

I’m a forty year old but one would think I’m eighty years old! That is if you listen to worship in today’s churches. Gone are the days of lovely, Word inspired hymns. No, it will not attract the young crowd! See why I am feeling old? The well-dressed choir has been replaced with head-banging young children, jumping up and down. The song with words that you can hear and understand has changed into a blur of noise with screams that hurt my ears (Old Gump!)

The music and lyrics are all on one monotone tune. Someone made me attend to this a while ago! You can blindfold me and play one of the New Age worship songs and I’ll identify the band or group for you. We identified the Lord in our worship when I was young – in my twenties, but remember I’m old now. You used to buy a Gospel album and be able to listen and enjoy all the songs. There is only one or maybe two songs on the New Age worship (church) albums these days that you can listen to, the rest are loud, boom – boom noise with people screaming in the microphones. Tlogoyaka ebokloko! This gives me a headache!

You can look at a devil-worshiping band next to a New Age worship (church) band and not see the difference. The hair styles, clothes, mannerisms and even tattoos are the same. The old songs used to say a lot about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in fear and trembling. The songs from the New Age worship (church) bands are more about me, myself and I. You get the name of Jesus every now and then mentioned, or shall I say screamed as if He is their mate! No reverence, fear and trembling. We’re in the enlightened age they say.

Well, it troubled my soul. I asked God what’s wrong with me! I emptied my selfish heart before the Lord. I asked Him to change my heart, to accept the change, to get the rhythm of the new, young wine and wind. I repented and repented so many times. I asked again His guidance to lead me back, to open my eyes.

These people proclaimed time and time again that we should not criticize. No avail! I’m lost, I’m old! So I am keeping on playing the old hymns and Gospel songs. These, true to their nature, are still a blessing to my soul.

I found myself the other day reading through Exodus 32, and then it happened! It was as if the Scriptures stood still! Of course I shouted! It is clear to me now! I would like to share this with you, as you might also feel old like me. I believe it will only be the old folk that might say amen to this and hear what I heard.

Here is the Scripture for you to judge with my commentary. Please friend, this is not an exposition of the passage; it is an application.

Exodus 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. Moses received the Law from the Lord. This is the first written Word by God Himself to His people. The tables (Luach luach) were the work of God. Luach means it a polished tablet. God did it and it was perfect, although it was the Law. It was the writings of God, something to get excited about. It was guidelines. Paul called it a tutor. This is God’s heart, His noise! Notice now!

Exodus 32:17And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. Now Joshua heard a noise! They could not see the people or what they were up to. They heard the noise. Joshua said to Moses that that is a noise of war. The word “heard” comes from Shama which means to hear intelligently. He identified a different noise. His intelligence was telling him that there is a distinct difference between worship noises and war noises. He remembered Exodus 15 when Miriam took timbrels and worshiped.

The noise and shout were so loud that it could split the ears. This is found in any night club and bar today! The music is so loud you need to shout a conversation out. What is the devil up to? It happens in the secular world, it happened in Exodus 32 and it happens in the church today. "Moses, I’m telling you there is a war brewing." He was right! It was a war against the sound of God! Listen carefully what Moses says.

Exodus 32:18And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. The casual reader would not pick this up. It sounds as if Moses is applauding the sound. He said instead it is not the voice of them that shout for mastery. It is not a victory shout. Oh, they thought they had victory but it was only noise. Same today! You listen to most New Age worship songs and they proclaim the victory! It’s is all about overcomers and kingdom builders. All about what we’ve achieved.

It is also not the voice of someone who lost, for they would have cried.

It is the noise of entertainment. It was a self-indulgent noise. Moses judged the sound better than Joshua. This is what you hear when the New Age worshipers start their worship. Some are proclaiming victory whilst others enjoy themselves in the entertainment. The church has given new life to the smoke guns, colored stage light and disco ball. More money are spend on sound systems than feeding the poor.

Exodus 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

So they heard the sound first, then the calf. You can ridicule me as much as you want but I’m telling you there is a calf in the New Age worshipers’ music. They saw the calf which was a false god. It was a statue representing the devil. He knew what was coming. He got them to make a different sound. They made a noise and danced. They conformed to the world. They remembered Egypt with its statues (calf) and wanted to be like the world again.

I can’t understand this fixation of the church to try to be like the world. The spirit of the world has entered into the church. So much so that the world looks at the church and the church at the world, and there is no difference. The church is no longer hated by the world. They (the world) are not throwing stones and eggs any more; they are throwing money and fame, and the church is gobbling it up.

I can also hear the noise; believe me there is a calf. I’m not old; far from it! I’m not backslidden! I can hear the noise and it sounds different. Great was my joy when the Lord liberated my heart; but also my anger that so many people accept this.

Others feel rejected, defeated and lost. This was never the purpose of the church. Like I say, and will say again, I am still young, but what about our senior brothers and sisters?

Exodus 32:20And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and straw it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. 21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? Yes, Aaron, tell us why you compromised. Let it be known here that every pastor that allows this in his church will answer this question one day.

Exodus 32:22And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou know the people, that they are set on mischief. 23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

Aaron's excuse is the very reason why the foundation of our songs needs to be built on the Scriptures. You know these people are evil in their hearts. That’s what the word mischief means here. Their actions were the manifestations of the heart. They could not hide it. I look at some of these so called Christian Rock bands and see the same thing. One person even said that something comes over him every time he takes the stage. He then continues on for hours in concert banging his head. I’m asking what comes out of him.

They said make us gods! Dear reader this is the root of all of this. It started with Lucifer who wanted to be God and is now continuing in the sons of disobedience. Most of the new age worshipers songs changed the emphasis of the songs from God to man. This comes out of their music just as it came out here in Exodus. We don’t want God’s melody, we want our own.

Conclusion!

I enjoy a nice Gospel song. There are modern day writers, who wrote and are still writing inspired, Spirit filled songs. These are nice to listen to but you will not find me in a church night club. Feel free to go; you won’t have to worry about me standing in the queue.

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

When Christ Died For Us

Devotional Thoughts

Excerpted from Matthew Henry's Commentary on Romans 5:6-11

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom we have now received the atonement.

I. The character we were under when Christ died for us.

1. We were without strength (v. 6), in a sad condition; and, which is worse, altogether unable to help ourselves out of that condition—lost, and no visible way open for our recovery—our condition deplorable, and in a manner desperate; and, therefore our salvation is here said to come in due time. God’s time to help and save is when those that are to be saved are without strength, that His own power and grace may be the more magnified, Deu. 32:36. It is the manner of God to help at a dead lift,

2. He died for the ungodly; not only helpless creatures, and therefore likely to perish, but guilty sinful creatures, and therefore deserving to perish; not only mean and worthless, but vile and obnoxious, unworthy of such favour with the holy God. Being ungodly, they had need of one to die for them, to satisfy for guilt, and to bring in a righteousness. This he illustrates (v. 7, 8) as an unparalleled instance of love; herein God’s thoughts and ways were above ours. Compare Jn. 15:13, 14, Greater love has no man.

One would hardly die for a righteous man, that is, an innocent man, one that is unjustly condemned; every body will pity such a one, but few will put such a value upon his life as either to hazard, or much less to deposit, their own in his stead.

It may be, one might perhaps be persuaded to die for a good man, that is, a useful man, who is more than barely a righteous man. Many that are good themselves yet do but little good to others; but those that are useful commonly get themselves well beloved, and meet with some that in a case of necessity would venture to be their antipsychoi—would engage life for life, would be their bail, body for body. Paul was, in this sense, a very good man, one that was very useful, and he met with some that for his life laid down their own necks, (Romans 16:4). And yet observe how he qualifies this: it is but some that would do so, and it is a daring act if they do it, it must be some bold venturing soul; and, after all, it is but a peradventure.

But Christ died for sinners (v. 8), neither righteous nor good; not only such as were useless, but such as were guilty and obnoxious; not only such as there would be no loss of should they perish, but such whose destruction would greatly redound to the glory of God’s justice, being malefactors and criminals that ought to die. Some think he alludes to a common distinction the Jews had of their people into ndyqym—righteous, hsdym—merciful (compare Isa. 17:1), and rssym—wicked. Now herein God commended Hhis love, not only proved or evidenced His love (He might have done that at a cheaper rate), but magnified it and made it illustrious. This circumstance did greatly magnify and advance His love, not only put it past dispute, but rendered it the object of the greatest wonder and admiration: "Now my creatures shall see that I love them, I will give them such an instance of it as shall be without parallel." Commendeth His love, as merchants commend their goods when they would put them off. This commending of His love was in order to the shedding abroad of His love in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. He evinces His love in the most winning, affecting, endearing way imaginable. While we were yet sinners, implying that we were not to be always sinners, there should be a change wrought; for He died to save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; but we were yet sinners when He died for us.

Nay, which is more, we were enemies (v. 10), not only malefactors, but traitors and rebels, in arms against the government; the worst kind of malefactors and of all malefactors the most obnoxious. The carnal mind is not only an enemy to God, but enmity itself, Romans 8:7; Col. 1:21. This enmity is a mutual enmity, God loathing the sinner, and the sinner loathing God, Zec. 11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die is such a mystery, such a paradox, such an unprecedented instance of love, that it may well be our business to eternity to adore and wonder at it. This is a commendation of love indeed. Justly might He who had thus loved us make it one of the laws of His kingdom that we should love our enemies.

II. The precious fruits of His death.

1. Justification and reconciliation are the first and primary fruit of the death of Christ: We are justified by His blood (v. 9), reconciled by His death, v. 10. Sin is pardoned, the sinner accepted as righteous, the quarrel taken up, the enmity slain, an end made of iniquity, and an everlasting righteousness brought in. This is done, that is, Christ has done all that was requisite on His part to be done in order hereunto, and, immediately upon our believing, we are actually put into a state of justification and reconciliation. Justified by His blood. Our justification is ascribed to the blood of Christ because without blood there is no remissionHeb. 9:22. The blood is the life, and that must go to make atonement. In all the propitiatory sacrifices, the sprinkling of the blood was of the essence of the sacrifice. It was the blood that made an atonement for the soul, Lev. 17:11.

2. Hence results salvation from wrath: Saved from wrath (v. 9), saved by His life, v. 10 When that which hinders our salvation is taken away, the salvation must needs follow. Nay, the argument holds very strongly; if God justified and reconciled us when we were enemies, and put Himself to so much charge to do it, much more will He save us when we are justified and reconciled. He that has done the greater, which is of enemies to make us friends, will certainly the less, which is when we are friends to use us friendly and to be kind to us. And therefore the apostle, once and again, speaks of it with a much more. He that hath digged so deep to lay the foundation will no doubt build upon that foundation.

We shall be saved from wrath, from hell and damnation. It is the wrath of God that is the fire of hell; the wrath to come, so it is called, 1 Th. 1:10. The final justification and absolution of believers at the great day, together with the fitting and preparing of them for it, are the salvation from wrath here spoken of; it is the perfecting of the work of grace.

Reconciled by His death, saved by His life. His life here spoken of is not to be understood of His life in the flesh, but His life in heaven, that life which ensued after His death. Compare Romans 14:9. He was dead, and is alive,Rev. 1:18. We are reconciled by Christ humbled, we are saved by Christ exalted. The dying Jesus laid the foundation, in satisfying for sin, and slaying the enmity, and so making us salvable; thus is the partition-wall broken down, atonement made, and the attainder reversed; but it is the living Jesus that perfects the work: He lives to make intercession, Heb. 7:25. It is Christ, in His exaltation, that by His word and Spirit effectually calls, and changes, and reconciles us to God, is our Advocate with the Father, and so completes and consummates our salvation. Compare Romans 4:25 and 8:34. Christ dying was the testator, who bequeathed us the legacy; but Christ living is the executor, who pays it. Now the arguing is very strong. He that puts Himself to the charge of purchasing our salvation will not decline the trouble of applying it.

3. All this produces, as a further privilege, our joy in God, v. 11. God is now so far from being a terror to us that He is our joy, and our hope in the day of evil, Jer. 17:17. We are reconciled and saved from wrath. Iniquity, blessed be God, shall not be our ruin. And not only so, there is more in it yet, a constant stream of favours; we not only go to heaven, but go to heaven triumphantly; not only get into the harbour, but come in with full sail: We joy in God, not only saved from His wrath, but solacing ourselves in His love, and this through Jesus Christ, who is the Alpha and the Omega, the foundation-stone and the top-stone of all our comforts and hopes—not only our salvation, but our strength and our song; and all this (which he repeats as a string he loved to be harping upon) by virtue of the atonement, for by Him we Christians, we believers, have now, now in Gospel times, or now in this life, received the atonement, which was typified by the sacrifices under the law, and is an earnest of our happiness in heaven. True believers do by Jesus Christ receive the atonement. Receiving the atonement is our actual reconciliation to God in justification, grounded upon Christ’s satisfaction. To receive the atonement is,

To give our consent to the atonement, approving of, and agreeing to, those methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken of saving a guilty world by the blood of a crucified Jesus, being willing and glad to be saved in a Gospel way and upon Gospel terms.

To take the comfort of the atonement, which is the fountain and the foundation of our joy in God. Now we joy in God, now we do indeed receive the atonement, kauchoµmenoi—glorying in it. God hath received the atonement (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; 28:2): if we but receive it, the work is done.

About Me

Check your daily "HERESCOPE." Herescope is an online journal revealing heresies and false teachings affecting the church today. Copyright 2005-2017 held by the author, IRG, Inc., or Discernment Ministries, Inc. unless otherwise noted. Herescope is a term coined by Lynn Leslie literally meaning "scoping out a heresy." Herescope began as a regular magazine column in The Christian Conscience magazine published during 1995-1998 by IRG, Inc. The Discernment Research Group is an ad hoc fellowship of Christian researchers with roots dating back to 1985. For more articles, books, and newsletters go to http://www.discernment-ministries.org.